search_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: smart intent detection, semantic search, and specific source mappings. It explains how different intents map to different directories, which goes beyond basic functionality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a critical clarification about 'project docs'. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the important intent distinction. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers search behavior, source mapping, and intent guidance. It lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., empty results) but is sufficient for a search tool with semantic matching.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by detailing the intent parameter's mapping (e.g., 'project_docs' vs 'plan') and clarifying ambiguous terms like 'project docs'. This helps the agent choose correct intent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches across project sources with intent detection. It specifies different sources (docs/, DECISIONS.md, .project/) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs and search_tasks by covering multiple sources with intent mapping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use each intent, especially the important distinction between 'project docs' (application docs) vs 'plan' (project management). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_docs for docs-only searches.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.